MPs to consider debate on when human life begins


Nuggler
#91
.........War on bugs??
 
Cliffy
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

WW2. I'd say it was worth the price to stop Hitler. Though I guess you can say it was a waste in that it could have been avoided had people noticed the way the wind was blowing throughout the 30s.

Everyone was aware of what Hitler was up to but they needed a war to end the great depression, so as far as I'm concerned, all those involved were guilty of that war.

Wall street bankers owned the USSR just as they owned the USA. The cold war was about manufacturing arms for profit. There never was a communist government in the USSR. The whole charade was about scaring the crap out of everybody to keep them hiding under their beds. Fear has always been the best means of control.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Everyone was aware of what Hitler was up to but they needed a war to end the great depression, so as far as I'm concerned, all those involved were guilty of that war.

Wall street bankers owned the USSR just as they owned the USA. The cold war was about manufacturing arms for profit. There never was a communist government in the USSR. The whole charade was about scaring the crap out of everybody to keep them hiding under their beds. Fear has always been the best means of control.

I seem to have misplaced my tin foil hat today. Do you have an extra one?

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

could have been avoided, and all we did was trade Hitler for Stalin and start the Cold War and the arms race.

I would be interested in hearing how you think that war could have been avoided. A lot of people critisized the allies for waiting so long to go to war.
 
Niflmir
+2
#94
The question isn't when life begins at all. That's just a huge red herring.

Nobody doubts that Trayvon Martin was alive, the question is whether or not his death was justified. Moreover, it doesn't matter if the life is human or not, as the wanton killing of animals can also land somebody in the hot seat.
 
gerryh
+2
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post


I would be interested in hearing how you think that war could have been avoided. A lot of people critisized the allies for waiting so long to go to war.


It could have been avoided right after WWI by not being vindictive with Germany. Proactively prevent the need for someone like Hitler to begin with.
 
Goober
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Everyone was aware of what Hitler was up to but they needed a war to end the great depression, so as far as I'm concerned, all those involved were guilty of that war.

Wall street bankers owned the USSR just as they owned the USA. The cold war was about manufacturing arms for profit. There never was a communist government in the USSR. The whole charade was about scaring the crap out of everybody to keep them hiding under their beds. Fear has always been the best means of control.

Right - It was all done with mirrors.
 
B00Mer
#97
Just be a good Catholic and pull willy-nilly before you ... nuff said
 
gerryh
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Just be a good Catholic and pull willy-nilly before you ... nuff said


Really, and that works for you?
 
B00Mer
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Really, and that works for you?

just make sure you have a good aim.. it can get rather messy if you don't...



Well honestly.. I guess I am one of the fortunate or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it..

Got the mumps when I was a about 12.. so I became sterile. Shooting potato water.. lol

I can have all the fun with no worries of responsibility 9 months later..

But, when I see a family.. I know I can never have children unless I adopt.. as I was. So ife goes on.. kids are expensive anyhow.

However, my opinion on when life begins..

Choose Life, your mother did.
 
gerryh
#100
I was just wondering where you got the idea that "pulling out" was an acceptable form of birth control.
 
B00Mer
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I was just wondering where you got the idea that "pulling out" was an acceptable form of birth control.

It was a joke... be a good Catholic and pull out..



Jesus gives you face palm.
 
gerryh
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

It was a joke... be a good Catholic and pull out..



Jesus gives you face palm.


well...I missed that since pulling out has nothing to do with Catholics and birth control, Abstinence and the rhythm method.
 
Liberalman
#103
Promises is not the Conservative strong suit
 
Niflmir
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

well...I missed that since pulling out has nothing to do with Catholics and birth control, Abstinence and the rhythm method.

Well, pulling out is generally lumped in with the rhythm method and other "non birth control" forms of birth control; so to a religion that basically forbids birth control, they altogether become the shabbos goy of the Catholics.
 
gerryh
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Well, pulling out is generally lumped in with the rhythm method and other "non birth control" forms of birth control; so to a religion that basically forbids birth control, they altogether become the shabbos goy of the Catholics.


Maybe you lump it in, I never have. Also, the "rhythm method" is a recognized form of birth control, whereas "pulling out" is a teen boys' line used to try and get into a teen girls pants.
 
Machjo
+1
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Harper says he won't reopen abortion debate - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News#

If Stephen Harper has any integrity, at least he will keep his word and vote it down.

In the latest news, it seems Harper does in fact intend to vote it down. Honestly, I do hope this bill passes, but I also hope anyone who even implied that they would oppose any such motion during their election campaign vote against it if they have integrity.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I was referring to Victorian Times as the rule for the current social conservative movement.
They don't have anything else to do accept determine how we should all behave.
They are ignoring the fact that we live in a different world.
It should also be pointed out that Britain has not official human rights constitution, they are
a constitutional monarchy. We do have a bill of individual human rights. Women have the
control of their own bodies and that is good enough for me. There are some rules and as
long as those rules are followed leave things alone. This country is in enough trouble without
opening old wounds.

But if science accepts that human life begins at conception, should the constitution not also confirm life begins at conception so as to conform with science, or should we ignore scientists and determine it rather by the whims and fancies of politicians?

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Human life, yes. Human being, no. Fetuses that are not viable are incomplete. Kind of like a germinated seed can't be called a tree.

But the seed has all the potentialities of becoming a tree, thus essentially a tree in development. Likewise starting at conception all the potentialities exist to become a baby, thus already a human in development.
 
CDNBear
+3
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

In the latest news, it seems Harper does in fact intend to vote it down.

Impossible!!! According to the Usual Suspects, he's a fascist social conservative hell bent on Christian/Americanizing Canada!!!

His claim is just a ploy to keep his evil hidden agenda, hidden.

Quote:

But if science accepts that human life begins at conception, should the constitution not also confirm life begins at conception so as to conform with science, or should we ignore scientists and determine it rather by the whims and fancies of politicians?

Pppht!!!!

The overwhelming data and opinion of scientists only matters when AGW is the topic of conversation Machjo.
Last edited by CDNBear; Apr 28th, 2012 at 07:55 AM..
 
Walter
+2
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Are you aware that life does not begin until birth? Or didn't you get the memo? Wether that birth is after 7 months or 9 months is irrelevant unless it can breath on its own. You can not murder something that does not exist.

Tell an expectant mother that the bump, that won't stop moving in her belly, doesn't exist. Man, was your last sentence ever dumb.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I've met anti-abortion atheists, so I doubt you can sum up any argument that simply.

Athiesm is a religion.
 
Machjo
+2
#109
Honestly, though, I find the motion presented to the House is quite reasonable: he's essentially asking that a committee study the matter of when life begins, which would naturally involve having to invite scientists too. I guess the NDP is scared stiff about that. If they had a little more confidence in science, the NDP would welcome this motion.
 
CDNBear
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Honestly, though, I find the motion presented to the House is quite reasonable: he's essentially asking that a committee study the matter of when life begins, which would naturally involve having to invite scientists too. I guess the NDP is scared stiff about that. If they had a little more confidence in science, the NDP would welcome this motion.

But they do have an overwhelming confidence in science Mach!

When it pertains to AGW.
 
Nuggler
#111
..........MPs to consider debate on when human life begins - Politics - CBC News


In the case of these damn fundies, human life never begins.

*******s!!
 
CDNBear
+1
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

..........MPs to consider debate on when human life begins - Politics - CBC News


In the case of these damn fundies, human life never begins.

*******s!!

Evil hidden agendas aside. What about the science Nugg?
 
Machjo
+1
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

..........MPs to consider debate on when human life begins - Politics - CBC News


In the case of these damn fundies, human life never begins.

*******s!!

Tell me about it! What's the use of knowing when life begins to determine government policy? The best policy comes out of ignorance, right?
 
Niflmir
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Maybe you lump it in, I never have. Also, the "rhythm method" is a recognized form of birth control, whereas "pulling out" is a teen boys' line used to try and get into a teen girls pants.

Just so you know that you are wrong, pulling out is considered a form of birth control. Most people just don't trust it very much. Which is weird, seeing as how it is one of the most widely used forms of birth control in human history:

Coitus interruptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On top of that, again, it doesn't matter if I lump it in or if you lump it in. What I was saying is that most people view the rhythm method like you view coitus interruptus. On top of that you have the Catholics using them to lawyer up the whole sex with birth control is a sin bit. As if God would think their loophole is acceptable.
 
Goober
+2
#115
Andrew Coyne: The idea we can't debate abortion is unworthy of a democratic country | Full Comment | National Post

Finding for the appellants in Regina v. Morgentaler, Justice Bertha Wilson nevertheless found herself in agreement with the Crown, that “the situation respecting a woman’s right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant, and some statutory control may be appropriate.”

A woman had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, she held, but like any other right it was not absolute. “I think s. 1 of the Charter authorizes reasonable limits to be put upon the woman’s right,” she wrote, “having regard to the fact of the developing foetus within her body. The question is: at what point in the pregnancy does the protection of the foetus become such a pressing and substantial concern as to outweigh the fundamental right of the woman to decide whether or not to carry the foetus to term?”

This did not require the Court to pronounce on when human life begins. Rather, following the example of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, she suggested the fetus be viewed as a “potential life,” whose interests acquire greater legal weight the more fully it has developed. This view, she wrote, “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.” Just when such conditions could be imposed she left “to the informed judgment of the legislature.”

Yes, that Bertha Wilson: first woman on the Supreme Court, fearless advocate for women’s rights, feminist icon. Though she ruled with the majority of her colleagues that the 1969 abortion law was unconstitutional, it is as clear from her ruling as it is from the others’ that they never intended this to be the last word on the subject. Indeed, they practically begged Parliament to have another go at it. The law in question, they wrote, may have been overbroad, but “it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months” would pass muster. Hint, hint.

That is what the Court actually ruled, as opposed to the mythology that has built up around it. It was an invitation to further democratic debate on a complex moral and legal question, not an absolute edict.

It is true that, since that historic 1988 decision, Canada has had no legal restrictions on abortion of any kind. But it is dishonest to pretend this means the matter has been settled, now and forever, or that dissenters from the status quo are, by definition, extremists. Any honest defence of the status quo must concede:

• that whatever its merits, the status quo — abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy — is at one end of the possible legal regimens surrounding abortion, with absolute prohibition at the other. That is, it is objectively extreme.

• that it is the result neither of any judgment of the Supreme Court nor the decision of any elected legislature. In fact, the House of Commons accepted the court’s invitation to redraft the law and, after two years of debate, passed one. It died by a tie vote of the Senate.

• that the legal vacuum that prevails in Canada is unique in the democratic world. Every other democratic country imposes some conditions on the right to abortion, with greater restrictions in the later stages of pregnancy.

• that polls have consistently shown the Canadian public is divided over the question, with the largest proportion somewhere between the two extremes.

Woodworth’s approach, while wide of the mark, is at least an attempt to break through the taboo on debating abortion. It is further indication — the furor over sex-selective abortion is another — that the issue is far from settled in the public mind. The pretense that it is, like the contradictory but often simultaneously advanced claim that it is too “divisive,” is unworthy of a democratic country.

Possibly, after a full and open debate, we might decide we wished to continue to have no abortion law — by policy, rather than by default. That is how a democracy decides such questions. It does not leave them to a tie vote of the Senate.
 
Kreskin
+3
#116
Quote:

the situation respecting a woman’s right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant

This is why legislators aren't able to establish effective law on this matter. No law will ever be comprehensive enough to consider all of the complex variables. Legislation written as long as the book War and Peace won't take into account all that needs to be considered.
 
PoliticalNick
+2
#117
Individual human life begins at the moment of birth. Until the fetus leaves the womb and is sustaining itself in the open environment it is a parasitic part of the mother. End of story!!!!!
 
Niflmir
+1
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Individual human life begins at the moment of birth. Until the fetus leaves the womb and is sustaining itself in the open environment it is a parasitic part of the mother. End of story!!!!!

That has always been my take on it too. In fact, at a certain stage, we do not call it an abortion anymore, we call it a Caesarean section. I maintain that a woman always has the right to remove anything from her own body, even her own heart, and that if medical science fails in its ability to maintain the life, than it is a tragedy and not a crime. Keeping also in mind that pulling the plug and in some cases, euthanasia is an act of mercy, one ends up with the controversial abortions where the fetus is actively killed instead of allowed to die.
 
taxslave
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Tell an expectant mother that the bump, that won't stop moving in her belly, doesn't exist. Man, was your last sentence ever dumb.

Athiesm is a religion.

OK let me rephrase that for the simple minded. You cannot kill something that is not alive. Until it breathes unaided it is not alive.
Using the religious definition of life at contraception would make the mother guilty of murder if she was to spontaneously abort.
BTW you spelt Atheism wrong.
 
CDNBear
+1
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

OK let me rephrase that for the simple minded. You cannot kill something that is not alive. Until it breathes unaided it is not alive.

So pulling the plug on people unable to breath on their own should be easy peasy.

Quote:

Using the religious definition of life at contraception would make the mother guilty of murder if she was to spontaneously abort.

Bingo!
 

Similar Threads

1
Human Footprint's facts of life
by Blackleaf | Apr 18th, 2007
60
Life begins...
by LittleRunningGag | Sep 7th, 2006
2
George Bush 1 and the sanctity of human life
by darkbeaver | Apr 8th, 2006
no new posts